Remove Allowed Well-Known Origin

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the constraint that the target is an HTTPS origin in a specific list, without saying what happens if the origin is absent or whether removal is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is tight, though a touch more context could be added without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description need not explain returns, but for a destructive config-mutation tool it omits any note about effect on the skill's behavior or error conditions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'origin' parameter already documents exact-match semantics. The description's mention of an 'HTTPS origin' restates the resource but adds no syntax, format, or normalization detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (HTTPS origin from the well-known allowed list), which distinguishes it from the sibling skill-config-add-allowed-origin. The phrase 'well-known allowed list' is slightly jargon-heavy but the direction of the operation is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to use this versus skill-config-add-allowed-origin or the broader skill-config tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. auth, that the origin must already exist) are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.